Re: Project Stanley

Please revise the document as Aleck's changes indicate. With respect to the
alternative responses shown near the end of the document, leave both
alternatives in.
---------------------- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/HOU/EES on 07/31/2000 08:58
AM ---------------------------

Richard Shapiro
07/31/2000 07:08 AM
To: Aleck Dadson/TOR/ECT@ECT
cc: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON@ECT, Eric
Thode/Corp/Enron@ENRON@ECT, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert
Hemstock/CAL/ECT@ECT, Ginger Dernehl/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Re: Project Stanley

I am comfortable w/ the changes. On question of whether we colluded W/
Powerex, I would opt for simpler alternative and say we complied w/ all rules
of the pool. Thanks.

To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Eric Thode/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Richard B
Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Hemstock/CAL/ECT@ECT
cc: Ginger Dernehl/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Project Stanley

Privileged and Confidential - For Instruction of
Counsel Attached is a revised
copy of the Background note discussed earlier this week. The revisions are
based on comments from Frontier Economics and GPC, and further reflection by
Rob Hemstock and myself. I have also attached the raw calculations from
Frontier that underlie several of the revisions. I have not sent the
revised document to outside counsel for review.